MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606557221 · doi:10.1002/9781118647110.ch7

Plastid Genome Stability and Repair

2017· other· en· W2606557221 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Zampini, Sébastien Truche, Étienne Lepage, Samuel Tremblay‐Belzile, Normand Brisson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlastidGenomeBiologyGeneticsNuclear geneChloroplast DNAEndosymbiosisChloroplastDNA repairMitochondrial DNAGeneHomologous recombinationDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plastids, like mitochondria, result from an ancient endosymbiosis event and contain a distinct genome. Though many plastid genes have since been transferred to the nuclear genome, the small plastid genome still encodes between 90 and 100 genes, which are notably involved in translation, transcription, and energy metabolism in the plastid. The many roles of this organelle, the most familiar being photosynthesis in chloroplasts, make it essential for the development of higher plants. As such, the ability of the plastid to maintain the stability of its genome represents a crucial element of plant life. The physical organization of the genome itself can have an influence on DNA metabolism, with its large inverted repeats acting as templates for recombination. Furthermore, the localization of chloroplast DNA near elements of the electron transport chain increases the importance of DNA repair mechanisms, as reactive oxygen species (ROS) appear as by-products of photosynthesis. These ROS, along with UV radiation and DNA double-strand breaks, create a genotoxic stress through their respective ability to oxidize nucleotides, link DNA bases, or rearrange the structure of the genome. To minimize the deleterious effects of these events, different mechanisms present in the nucleus such as homologous recombination exist in plastids. Some less conservative mechanisms based on sequences of microhomology are also found, and sometimes lead to copy-number variation in certain areas of the plastid genome. While some of these changes can remain silent, others can be linked to phenotypes such as variegation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207